3 ms·

From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. This is more that one every 4 minutes. The trains would also

From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. This is more that one every 4 minutes. The trains would also run very fast. This allows for caring lots of passengers, but it also is very complex to achieve and accounts for a lot of the costs (as well as buying property). Also inflation had to be taken into account when comparing projects that are decades apart. So without knowing much about the details, it might well be that the costs are plausible to what was proposed.

45ure 7y ago
>From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. The comparison of HS2 with 18 paths per hour in each direction, on an overground rail system stretching over 320 miles, running at high speed (theoretical uppper speed limit of 250mph), with the London Underground, is laughable. I could not find any references to your claim in the official documents. The project was never about speed, but rather about increasing capacity. It was packaged and sold to the voters as shaving off some time to get from A to B, largely due to politrickery. The aim is to free up commuter, regional and freight capacity on existing lines ─ which will also have an overall impact on roads and motorway nework used by freight carriers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480646/supplement-to-strategic-case.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- prennert 7y ago
  I meant to compare mainly from a user perspective. If a train runs every 4 mins and takes a bit more than an hour to get to it's destination that's very similar to the tube experience. Very different to a typical train experience where you have to turn up exactly in time or wait another 30 mins for the next train. The point I was trying to make was that a comparison to HS1 without accounting for the train frequency is probably not fair.

45ure 7y ago

>From what I understand HS2 was planned to become very similar to the tube with 18 trains per hour. The comparison of HS2 with 18 paths per hour in each direction, on an overground rail system stretching over 320 miles, running at high speed (theoretical uppper speed limit of 250mph), with the London Underground, is laughable. I could not find any references to your claim in the official documents. The project was never about speed, but rather about increasing capacity. It was packaged and sold to the voters as shaving off some time to get from A to B, largely due to politrickery. The aim is to free up commuter, regional and freight capacity on existing lines ─ which will also have an overall impact on roads and motorway nework used by freight carriers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480646/supplement-to-strategic-case.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

prennert 7y ago
I meant to compare mainly from a user perspective. If a train runs every 4 mins and takes a bit more than an hour to get to it's destination that's very similar to the tube experience. Very different to a typical train experience where you have to turn up exactly in time or wait another 30 mins for the next train. The point I was trying to make was that a comparison to HS1 without accounting for the train frequency is probably not fair.